Search results for query: *

We always use the same method, the scientific one. I don't think there are any shortcuts or any valid non-scientific methods. So the accepted method is the scientific one. This doesn't imply a lab. In everyday life you just have to be systematic, note everything, see if it is more likely than...

I think it is valid, but of course P1 is false. It is a particular set of conditionals and it can be made more intelligible by transforming it in equivalent constructions. Which will show that the argument does not prove anything. Some provisos. 1. Denying a conditional ¬(If P, then Q) = P...

Well this bit of propositional logic is completely confused. This is not a logical truth. This is not even valid. This is not an analytical truth. What it is, is a piece of not well formulated sequence of words. (a denial of a wff). Secondly, you make things even more obscure by denying a...

You're right. This is a real danger. And I think it will be inevitable. Frightening but very likely to become real. And the quantity of data is in no way a limit or inconvenient. Facial recognition is already here. In the Economist you can read an article about AI inferring sexual orientation...